minutes - Benzie County Government

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
BENZIE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH, 12, 2009
MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Katherine Ross
Mike Moorman, Don Tanner, Karen Roberts, Kathy Ralston,
MEMBERS EXCUSED: Mary Pitcher,
MEMBERS ABSENT: Anne Damm
STAFF PRESENT: David Neiger, Christi Flynn
OTHERS PRESENT: Wilfred Swiecki, Glenn Puit, Bob Bigelow, Tom Mountz
I. Open the Meeting Moorman Ralston cf opened the meeting at 7:19 p.m.
II. Approval of the Agenda Motion by Roberts seconded by Moorman to approve
the agenda as submitted. Ayes: All Nays: None Excused: Pitcher Absent:
Damm Motion Carried
III. Approval of the Minutes of the Jan. 8, 2009 Meeting Motion by Moorman
seconded by Roberts to approve the Minutes as submitted. Ayes: All Nays: None
Excused: Pitcher Absent: Damm Motion Carried
IV. Public Input – Items on the Agenda
● Mr. Swiecki makes the following comments:
▪ The definitions in the plan are Benzie County’s.
▪ The plan has been adopted by Lake Township, and he doesn’t speak for
Lake Township.
▪ There is a spending issue where money was spent and they weren’t
informed beforehand.
▪ He doesn’t know what the Planning Commission wants him to do.
▪ His experts and the State of Michigan agree the PLIA management plan is
good.
▪ Benzie County may approve permits, but had better be sure they
don’t violate the 8 micrograms of phosphorus per liter as per the Settlement
Agreement. If the PLIA finds out that approved plans will allow an increase of
phosphorus into the lakes they will be after the county.
▪ He thinks the county doesn’t want to work with them (PLIA).
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
● Neiger comments that the memo passed out tonight was dated in January but the
Planning Commission didn’t receive it until just before the February meeting which was
canceled.
VI. Committee Reports
A. Zoning Ordinance Update Committee Report (ZORC)
● Moorman reports:
▪ The Platte Lakes Area Management Plan has been forwarded to the
Planning Commission for action.
▪ Roberts is chairing a wind energy committee working on a wind energy
component for the Zoning Ordinance.
▪ The committee is working on new language for Platte Township zoning as
suggested by legal counsel. They are working to amend the current Rural
Preservation District to try to meet Platte Township’s needs.
● Neiger reports on the rural preservation district, and the history that allowed so
many non-residential uses in the district.
▪ He is splitting the existing Rural Preservation District with 4 different lot sizes
into 4 separate districts which will have different uses allowed in each.
▪ He explains how to use the land use table.
▪ Conservation Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) are the only PUD
available in the large districts.
▪ He believes that most of Platte Township is in favor of this.
▪ The larger acreage districts will be more restrictive than the smaller ones
(RP 2.5 and RP-5). Additionally more types of PUDs may be allowed in the smaller
acreage districts, possibly including Mixed Use or Commercial PUD’s.
▪ Places where different uses should be allowed were discussed.
▪ He states there is minimal industrial zoning at this time but it may be
expanded later on a case by case basis.
▪ The wind energy committee meets at 3 p.m. on the first Thursday of the
month.
● Tanner states that Joyfield is very interested in this process.
B. Updating Comprehensive Plan
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
1. Comprehensive Plan Update Committee(CPUC)
● Neiger reports his primary focus has been the Parks and Recreation Commission
Master Plan. They have been working on the goals, objectives and action strategies,
plus cultural and historical amenities and services.
▪ Approximately 10 projects, including trail development from Thompsonville
to Interlochen and connecting the Betsie Valley Trail to the High School and the
Village of Honor are included.
▪ The final draft should be ready by next month.
● Neiger reports that the SocioEconomic report needs to be updated, although the
Planning Commission has adopted it. It needs to have some comments inserted.
● Forestry is almost finished but there are some problems with the text.
● He will try to schedule a joint Comprehensive Plan Update Committee/government
subcommittee meeting to get as much input as possible. He hopes to have the meeting
the last week in March.
2. Intergovernmental Cooperation Summit Ralston reports the Summit was
held on February 21, 2009.
● She hopes there will be more involvement from the community.
● The leaders of the “initiatives”/”alliances” from this summit will become the steering
committee for future summits.
● Communication is top issue.
● Roberts reports that MLUI is planning to hold some “summit” type, groups looking
at cooperation.
● Glenn Puit states it will not be a formal entity but will be a group looking at forms of
communication and coordinating with other organizations that are doing the same thing.
● As goals and objectives are developed perhaps some of the groups could combine.
● Funding for the Summit is an issue as it is not self funding. Ralston states that if
the Summit continues we will have to look at some outside sources of funding. She
reports that it cost $1,631.03 to put the summit on and $795 was taken in. She adds
hearing comments that having the local food was a plus.
● Ross reports that Tom Longanbach, Equalization Department, is on the grants
group and he signed them up with a yahoo group where people can post grants that are
available
3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
● An ICC meeting is scheduled for May 8, 2009.
C. Parks and Recreation Commission Covered above.
D. Zoning Board of Appeals – Tanner states the statute allows him to be on the ZBA.
Flynn announces 2 ZBA applications are being processed.
VII. Unfinished Business
A. Amendment Adoption Process
● Moorman reviewed existing policy.
● There was discussion on consultants and legal reviews.
● Neiger states we’re just about finished with 1 st rewrite and need to replace Mark
Wyckoff with someone of that caliber to work on the next stage.
▪ Neiger would like language fairly well set before review.
▪ Tanner states the review process will vary depending on the complexity of
the proposed amendment(s).
▪ Moorman would like to add two (2) times for legal counsel, if required.
▪ Neiger states when we get done with the issues we’re working on and start
on the new rewrite we must have a consultant on board who will present a
package.
▪ Neiger reports in the past, the consultant wrote the language, then it went to
a committee or the Planning Commission, and then for legal review if it was
necessary. He states if the consultant has enough experience in writing Zoning
Ordinances, you don’t need as much legal review.
▪ Roberts suggests that the consultant prepare the amendment, then it goes
to the ZORC, then to the Planning Commission, then to legal review, and then to
public hearing.
▪ After further discussion the proposed amendment process reads as follows
and is shown on the attached flow chart:
Prepare, review and present to the ZORC by the Consultant. ZORC reviews and either
returns it to the consultant or presents to the Planning Commission for Public Work
Session. After the work session the Planning Commission/ZORC either returns it to the
4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
ZORC for additional work or forwards to the Zoning Attorney for Legal Review. The
Planning Commission reviews the legal opinion and revises, then forwards to Public
Hearing. The decision of the Planning Commission is forwarded to the County Board of
Commissioners for action.
Motion by Roberts seconded by Tanner to approve and adopt the amendment procedure
as shown on the flow chart (attached). Ayes: All Nays: None Excused: Pitcher
Absent: Damm Motion Carried
Chairperson Ralston called a recess at 8:15 p.m.
Chairperson Ralston called the meeting back to order at 8:22 p.m.
*B. Platte Lakes Area Management Plan
● Moorman suggests reviewing the “Talking Points” submitted by Wilfred Swiecki
before going to the staff report.
● Neiger reports that the plan went to committee in 2005 and the consensus was that
the Planning Commission had a full plate at the time. He states the Planning Commission
still has a full plate. He adds that there never was enough interest to take up the issue.
▪ The typo on #5 was corrected to 2008.
▪ Neiger states the following:
* Lake Township did adopt the proposal in 2005.
* He did work on the committee, but it was written for Lake Twp.
* The big issue is the single focus on phosphorus versus our focus on
the whole water body not just the phosphorus numbers.
● Neiger comments on the application fee and the escrow account:
▪ Yes the application was received in 2008 and fee was paid.
▪ Mr. Swiecki was not contacted in advance of the outside review but he
thought there was money in the account. When he found out there were no funds
left in the escrow account, it was too late.
▪ The Planning Commission was in agreement to get the outside opinion, they
had questions on the content and legal opinion and they felt Dr. Grobbel was the
best person for an outside opinion.
● Ross asks for summary of the difference in opinions on the buffer issue.
5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
▪ Neiger reports that some of the previous reports have caused some people
to believe that vegetation should be harvested to prevent phosphorus from getting
into the lake.
▪ There were previous discussions with Mr. Swiecki and it was explained that
an undisturbed vegetation buffer will prevent phosphorus and other nutrients from
getting into the lake.
▪ He had agreed at the time that harvesting the vegetation would be good for
Lake Township.
▪ Neiger states that Dr. Grobbel felt that the buffer was moving towards more
of a structure setback and not a buffer zone, as did some of the Planning
Commissioners.
▪ Neiger states the buffer should be between 25 and 100 feet wide, which
could be a problem around the lakes due to what is there now.
▪ Neiger states the best management practice is an undisturbed buffer with a
minimal amount of beach.
● Neiger adds that the prevailing wisdom at the time the Plan was being drafted was
about the same as it is now. There was information from Wisconsin stating that a 100 foot
buffer was best, input from Ron Harrison (formerly of the Conservation District), Mary
Pitcher (as Director of the Conservation District) and Diane Hash (formerly of the
Conservation District) expressing concern about the Plan. Additionally there was
information from studies done in Minnesota.
● Tanner would like to think that at some point there could be some agreement.
* He states he sees issues of harvesting vegetation, and removing the
clippings.
* He adds that we can’t adopt legislation requiring buffer strips.
* Additionally, re-vegetating can be done, but it needs to be done voluntarily.
● Neiger comments on the procedure to process the application:
▪ The Zoning Administrator looks at it and determines it’s complete or not.
▪ The Zoning Ordinance Rewrite Committee has had many discussions on
this matter.
▪ We now have a fee that needs to be paid, and the PLIA says they won’t pay
it.
6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
▪ It is difficult to continue with discussion, when it seems like the PLIA does
not want to work together.
▪ The Zoning Ordinance Rewrite committee sent it to the Planning
Commission and the Planning Commission should move on to public hearing.
▪ We can’t make a determination that it is incomplete at this point.
▪ We have an escrow process that we followed, but there are no funds left in
the escrow fund.
● The escrow account fund balance and how it was used was discussed. Ralston
states that we might owe Mr. Swiecki an apology, but that she thinks the Planning
Commission followed the Ordinance.
● Getting a map of the proposed management area was discussed.
● Tanner comments that we can extend an apology to PLIA, acknowledging that we
may have differences of opinion in reading the ordinance and ask for the money, and
move on to working to get something that we both can agree on
● Wilfred Swiecki states:
▪ When the document was put together PLIA used 99.9% of Don Swartz’s
language because they didn’t want Don Swartz to challenge it.
Agreement.
▪ There is an 8 micrometer per liter limit of phosphorus per the Settlement
▪ There are 2 ways to handle the issue, if the Plan is not adopted he will
challenge each and every permit that is issued in the watershed, and if not resolved
satisfactorily they will fight it out in court.
▪ The PLIA has the data to challenge everything Dr. Grobbel says.
▪ The Plan doesn’t mandate that you have to mow the grass, but if you do,
you have to do it right.
● People aren’t happy with a 25’ x 4’ beach away from the lake.
● He can’t do anything that will increase the load of phosphorus into the lake.
● Neiger states he thinks we are obligated to act on the language that has been
presented as there has been no acceptance of changing the language. Additionally he
states Minnesota and Wisconsin both have different plans. Mr. Swiecki states that
Minnesota has passed a statewide phosphorus ban. Mr. Swiecki offers to assemble the
experts and bring them.
7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
● Neiger comments that we have been working on this since September, and
believes the Zoning Ordinance requires that we act promptly on the application. Flynn
states that the ordinance does require that we act promptly but we cannot force the
applicant to change their application. But, if the PLIA and the Planning Commission agreed
to step back and take another look we would have an obligation to do that. There was
some further discussion on negotiating, getting more expert opinions and grandfathering.
There was consensus that the Planning Commission wanted an opinion of its own. Tanner
suggests adopting what the Planning Commission thinks is best and see if Mr. Swiecki
comes in and says it’s a violation of the settlement agreement if we approve permits. Mr.
Swiecki is sure he will find them.
Motion by Ross seconded by Roberts to move the application and supporting documents
to public hearing. The supporting documents include, but are not limited to the letters from
Attorney Figura, the January 25, 2009 letter from Mr. Swiecki, Dr. Grobbel’s letter, the
“Talking Points” submitted by Mr. Swiecki, the documents passed out at Dr. Canale’s
presentation, and the DNR letter of approval. Flynn will work with Mr. Swiecki to get all the
documents together. Ayes: All Nays: None Excused: Pitcher Absent: Damm
Motion Carried
Tanner excused at 9:15 p.m.
The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. due to lack of a quorum. The next regular meeting will
be April 9, 2009.
Respectfully Submitted:
________________________
Katherine Ross, Secretary
_________________________
Christi Flynn, Recording Secretary
chris P:\pcminute\2009\MARCH 12\3 12 09 minutes.doc
8